Its really a question of what do people want out of life. Most simply adapt themselves to "modern living" without question. Set on a pathway from birth, the majority follow the social norms of the society around them, in the modern Australian context that is they get a worthwhile education, get a good job, having a loving family, moving through life without questioning the reason, if there is one, for their purpose in life.

There are those who see the inadequacies and injustices of modern society, and will try to instigate social reform of sorts to improve outcomes, but always within the confines of the existing boundaries and accepted social norms, the "reformers" as opposed to the "conservatives" who want to maintain the status quo. Politically these reformers and conservatives are to be found on both sides of Australian politics. The reformers agenda is to improve society to some degree by tinkering around the edges of its fabric, but essentially maintaining society with its rules and conditions very as it is, but with some improvements. The reformers and conservatives are the dominant forces within Australian politics today, all others fail to get a look in.

Who are there others, there are those who want complete social change, the "radicals", they are a small minority and have little traction within modern Australia, and will not make gains whilst ever Australia is relatively prosperous and egalitarian. Also on the outer edge of society are those who have failed for some reason to embrace modern living and have been excluded from the benefits, generally we call them the "disadvantaged". Somewhere there are few who reject modernism and want to live an alternate existence, being left to pursue a different way independent of others, call them cult followers, or just eccentric oddities, they want to pursue their own purpose in life. Have I left anyone out?

So, in 200 years we have screwed up the planet. Well, we have built houses of stone and clay of timber and steel, mined rare earths, and sand for glass, grown wool and cotton to clothe the nations, and tilled the soil to grow grains, fruits, and pastures to feed the nation. We developed fisheries too to supply the communities. Sorry we did not just scavenge to feed our own families and ward off other families trying to enter our food patch.
If you want a simple life and tread softly on the earth it is your choice, but do not develop cities of stationary dwellings and businesses supporting high technology. In the simple life it is survival of the fittest, be prepared for high death rates in children, childbirth and the aged.

Aries ,

It's not a case of being scared. It's a case of being offended.

I'm offended that a white man can pretend to be aboriginal and despite no evidence for the claim which has already been rejected by various actual aboriginal groups, it is accepted and promoted by other whites.

I'm offended that the history is fabricated out of whole clothe and then promoted by these fake aboriginals as fact which will be passed on to our kids via the indoctrination processes of public education.

I'm offended that some take the utterly unremarkable evidence that some small number of aboriginal groups weren't nomadic and try to insinuate that that means none were.

Basically, I'm offended when fantasy is portrayed as fact.

I don't care if this or that fabulist wants to believe things about stone age societies that are just rubbish. But I do care that there fables become the basis of fundamental changes to our society and thinking.

Case in point..."Personally I have great respect for a people who for 60,000 years “tread lightly upon the earth”, "

After these so-called first people arrived in Australia, they proceeded to wipe out ALL mega fauna. Not just the odd creature here and there but literally dozens upon dozens of large marsupials, birds, lizards and monotremes. Not only that but their fire culture utterly altered the Australian landscape, wiping out all sorts of flora that couldn't cope with the new regime, while favouring those that could. The landscape now is filled with flora that needs fire to germinate and the defining feature of the continent's flora - the Eucalypt - is utterly adapted to the fire regime.

So the new arrivals totally changed the landscape and the creatures in it and then (but only then) "tread lightly". Give we recent arrives a millennium or two to utterly change the landscape of Australia and we'll walk light upon it as well.

Oh BTW, this notion that the way Australia was in 1788 is the way it always has been is part of that fudging of history that I find offensive.

Josephus,

<<NathanJ, identify what you mean by sophisticated please.
Do you mean living a high social life?
Do you mean not living a simple fugal life?
Do you mean not living a hunter gather life?
Do you mean living in a Modern world economy/>>

I'm not 100% sure what you mean there, so I'll try and take a guess here. I'll include some dictionary definitions too.

Sophisticated does mean for me, not living a hunter-gather lifestyle. I see no issue with living a hunter-gather lifestyle at all. Such a lifestyle is low impact, like say for example mushroom foraging. Yes, you need the knowledge to take the good from the bad, but you are not living a complex, high impact lifestyle, one that impacts on the natural world.

Dictionary definitions and synonyms also provide some extended background to my view also.

(2) lacking complexity of structure: SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD and in terms of a synonym the following:

"NATURAL implies lacking artificiality and self-consciousness and having a spontaneousness suggesting the natural rather than the man-made world."

So, in essence your life is based the natural world, not your own and the impacts from that in terms of living and the planet flow on to a sustainable way of life. You are not a selfish person and see the planet as one to take from and use in a way it can regenerate at other times, with a light ecological footprint by yourself at the same time.

Aries54,

The semantics of defining ‘civilised’, or ‘sophisticated’ etc is pointless.

Well as per the above it is relevant. It separates people's lives today from previous times when we truly understand how people lived previously. We can then decide if we are going to change ourselves. I try and live a basic lifestyle myself, but I can only improve if I have facts available to do so and this includes how people lived in early days, not simply providing me with generalities, half-baked stories or feelings.

Offended that a white man can pose as a black man?

Aboriginal academic Dr Suzanne Ingram, suggests as many as 300,000 of the reported 800,000 Aboriginal population might not be genuine. No 'white supremacist' claim there.

That's a lot of posers.

Gary Johns has caused a lot of shrieking for his belief that DNA tests should be performed on those claiming aboriginality.

Good idea. No proof is currently required. Self-identification and acceptance by real aborigines is absurd. Yeah, mate, you're one of us could have all sorts of bribery and threats behind it.

There is too much money, too many privileges at stake, to piss around the way it is now. It's a bit like believing all women claiming to be raped because they say so: no proof - just believe them.

Let's do it scientifically, like the Left demands when it suits them.

Ancestry DNA gives so much more than just the places
you're from. Millions of people have uncovered something new.
Don't be jealous. You could to.